GOP conservation cuts rile sportsmen

House Republicans fighting the Obama administration’s environmental agenda are finding themselves making decisions that threaten the party’s carefully nourished relationship with the hook and bullet crowd.

Anglers and hunters once courted by President George W. Bush don’t like what they’re seeing in the GOP’s mad dash to cut spending and have made their feelings clear in meetings this month with top aides to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.).

Text Size

-

+

reset

POLITICO 44

As the Republican leaders no doubt know, this is not a crowd to mess with. The Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation estimates that nearly eight in 10 hunters always vote in presidential elections, while six in 10 go to the polls in off years.

The outdoorsmen typically lean Republican, but Democrats say they could capitalize with a constituency that’s also known to be pretty independent minded.

“That’s a very powerful group,” said Minnesota Rep. Tim Walz. “They bring in a pretty diverse voice. I think you have to be really careful with this because I think the American public, while they want spending cuts, certainly don’t want to decimate the environment for the long run.”

Bush routinely fought with mainstream environmental groups. But the Texan, who loved to clear brush on his Crawford ranch, worked hard to court the outdoor crowd.

Bush won accolades from conservationists for his handling of the Healthy Forests Initiative to diminish forest fire risks and for creating farm bill programs to promote wetlands and wildlife habitat. The Adirondack Council, which focuses only on the New York state park, also backed Bush’s Clear Skies Act, which skirted reductions for global warming pollution but tried to make inroads on acid rain, a big problem in the region. “There was definitely a feeling in the hunting and fishing community that the Clinton administration had not shown the level of respect [it deserved],” said H. Dale Hall, a Bush-era director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service who leads Ducks Unlimited. “Whether it’s true or not, the perception was there that they were a secondary thought. We believed it should be a primary thought.”

Back in power, House Republicans may have poisoned the well with their austere spending strategy, including the fiscal 2012 interior and environment spending bill that is on track for approval Tuesday in the Appropriations Committee.

So much for shared sacrifice.We're supposed to cut budgets and some will not be popular.I'm all for conservation but I bet their is some waste in all programs.I don't like the EPA.I'm suprised the outdoors men are backing them.Wait till the EPA tells them they can't walk in forest,shoot lead,shoot anything.From what I'm reading the EPA is making It's own rules up.They are not a friend of hunters or fishermen.Down wiyh the EPA.

The Republican Party at one time enjoyed the support of 93% of the African-American vote, now begs to get 3%! Has so alienated the Latino community, that if they can get 30% of that vote the right-wing press celebrates. The Jewish community has never given them more then token support. They have for some reason that escapes logical reasoning, have now destroyed any support they may have had with teachers, government workers, retirees and union members! The party's expressed outright hated for anyone who has a moral or social concept different than their base, has turned that large group total off, Now they are trying to get rid of any support they may have had with the hook and bullet (as an avid hunter, I happen to be one) group. Who are the genius running this party, and who in the hell educated them? This party really thinks they are going to “shock” America in the 2012 election. If they keep going the way they are, there WELL be a shock.

The Republican Party at one time enjoyed the support of 93% of the African-American vote, now begs to get 3%! Has so alienated the Latino community, that if they can get 30% of that vote the right-wing press celebrates. The Jewish community has never given them more then token support. They have for some reason that escapes logical reasoning, have now destroyed any support they may have had with teachers, government workers, retirees and union members! The party's expressed outright hated for anyone who has a moral or social concept different than their base, has turned that large group total off, Now they are trying to get rid of any support they may have had with the hook and bullet (as an avid hunter, I happen to be one) group. Who are the genius running this party, and who in the hell educated them? This party really thinks they are going to “shock” America in the 2012 election? It's hard to win an election when your party does everything it can to loose!

What does allowing the corporation pillage and plunder our wild lands ruining it for hunters, fishermen, and lots of outdoor folk who ride off road vehicles and snow mobiles have to do with budget cutting?

Why are Republicans in Congress responsible for cutting the budgets of Exxon and BP so they can pollute some great fishing areas and deprive American sportsman of both the joy of catching food,but also the taste of fresh catch?

As Woody sang long ago, this land is my land, this land is your land, so Congress remember you work for We the People who that land belongs to, not the corporations who see it as new wasteland for profit.

This is NOT a news story about some split between the "hook and bullet" crowd and the Republican party. It is a planted story trying to deceive people into thinking there is some sort of divide.

Hunters and fishermen do not waste their time worrying about some phony EPA limits on some company's pesticide level. That's an issue for the wacko left.

What hunters and fishermen DO want is to be left alone. They are not among the supporters of the left who are out to find some lame excuse to grab a chunk of taxpayer money. They know very well what the left is all about - elimination of ALL hunting, fishing and ownership of guns.

This lame attempt to drive a wedge between people who want to see some responsibility in government and the Republican party is as lame as Obama's economic policies - and will prove to be just as big a failure.

Democrats say they could capitalize with a constituency that’s also known to be pretty independent minded.

We could say that Idiot-Board Barack has trashed any chance of that with this new gun-registration scheme, but the fact is that this whole idea is wishful thinking.

The Democratic Party is no place for anyone who is "pretty independent minded." When the first President Bush alienated the gun owners, they did NOT run off to vote Democrat, they just stayed home and Slick Willie was elected.

The "hook and bullet crowd" won't vote for the party which has spent the last 40 years trying to close off the outdoors, regulate their guns out of existence, give "full rights" to fish and paint them as brutal, moronic thugs.

Well yeah, duh cutting back on absurd amounts of overspending will cause some pain -- but it's still necessary -- the Democrats are just too reckless -- they refuse like a little child to slow down. How much longer can our federal govt spend $1.6T MORE than the revenue coming in? It's already trashing the value of the dollar. And the worst is yet to come if the Democrats don't allow any meaningful spending reductions.

Welcome to semi-socialism my friend. The Democrats have managed to grow govt so large that huge blocks of voters are now indebted to Democrat big-spending legislators -- govt workers (including public sector teachers) owe their whole careers to the govt -- duh -- and poor people owe their food stamps and section 8 housing, etc, to the generosity of the govt. The problem with all this, is that it's grown too large for the private sector workers to afford. Fed govt spends $3.7T/year, has taxation revenue of $2.2T -- so spending has sort of mushroomed over the last 3 years to be ABSURDLY high. Cutting spending down is sort of NECESSARY. But the Democrats are playing politics and want to punish the taxpayers even more, to raise revenue to $2.3T -- and why? For votes in 2012 -- the Democrat voters LIKE higher-taxpaying folks to be punished, even if the amount doesn't significantly help the deficit. It's been a winning message for the Democrats since 1932. And it's resulted in a growth of govt to levels that are now NOT SUSTAINABLE. But the Democrats refuse like little children, to do the right thing and start cutting spending. We're in big freaking trouble with the fascists in charge like Obamao who refuse to reduce spending.

Welcome to semi-socialism my friend. The Democrats have managed to grow govt so large that huge blocks of voters are now indebted to Democrat big-spending legislators -- govt workers (including public sector teachers) owe their whole careers to the govt -- duh -- and poor people owe their food stamps and section 8 housing, etc, to the generosity of the govt. The problem with all this, is that it's grown too large for the private sector workers to afford. Fed govt spends $3.7T/year, has taxation revenue of $2.2T -- so spending has sort of mushroomed over the last 3 years to be ABSURDLY high. Cutting spending down is sort of NECESSARY. But the Democrats are playing politics and want to punish the taxpayers even more, to raise revenue to $2.3T -- and why? For votes in 2012 -- the Democrat voters LIKE higher-taxpaying folks to be punished, even if the amount doesn't significantly help the deficit. It's been a winning message for the Democrats since 1932. And it's resulted in a growth of govt to levels that are now NOT SUSTAINABLE. But the Democrats refuse like little children, to do the right thing and start cutting spending. We're in big freaking trouble with the fascists in charge like Obamao who refuse to reduce spending.

The point of the old saying about a straw that broke the camel's back is that numerous little things add up. That's how we have trillions of dollars in debt and are on a trajectory to be another Greece. Each group has its own interest and has blinders as to the impact on the overall situation. The cuts are necessary (whereas "riders" that allow corporations to pollute are not).

These groups should establish charitable organizations that could endeavor to make up for what they want done but the government can't afford. In other words, put your money where your mouth is.

The hook and bullet crowd is represented by The Issac Walton League? Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Trust?

The author should solicit the opinion of the National Rifle Association, U.S. Sportsman's Alliance or Safari Club International. This is the hook and bullet crowd. Ducks Unlimited is a habitat conservation organization that lets these organizations do the dirty work of scrapping with the anti-hunting zealtots, so DU is mischaracterized as hook and bullet in this article.

Making sportsmen issues partisan will give away at least half the issues. Nice work, Ducks, Izaak, and TRC Pantywaist. I guess you're not as committed to solutions as Field and Stream reported: http://www.fieldandstream.com/...

Conservation and Conservatives share the same etymologic root and should be happy bedfellows, but alas, because it costs to conserve the environment, conservationists do not find fiscal conservatives to be their champions.

To the extent that the current Republicans' slash and burn budget loosen enviro laws IS of concern to not only the current generation of outdoorsman, but our children and grandchildren's enjoyment of the same activities. Some of the defunding will probably be detrimental, others not so much.

Obviously, this country cannot seem to have decent economic activity AND clean air and water. Are these outcomes mutually exclusive? If effective dollars can be applied to protect the environment, then I say continue...but slash the waste.

This comes down to the central economic conundrum of The Tragedy of the Commons. The moving water, air and public lands belong not only to us all, but to future generations, too. Unfortunately, they must be managed as not to be despoiled in the pursuit of private gain.

This economic dynamic either must be regulated or factored into the factors of production and monetized. Government regulation is inefficient, therefore the latter may be preferred by fiscal conservatives.

As far as I am concerned the "outdoor crowd" need to get over it. True fiscal conservatives who want smaller, more efficient government realize you can not have it three ways: You can not demand the government slash everything & you can not demand government workers take cuts while screaming you want yours.

The Tea Party members have few common threads that tie them together. The one thing they can all agree on is they hate President Obama for what George W Bush did to this country. Bush/Cheney plunged this country into debt. Where is you rage for them? Why weren't you furious during that presidency? Absolute hypocrisy.